Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 04:35:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 04:35:24 -0500 Received: from c17928.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.249.29]:54144 "EHLO laptop.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 04:35:22 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Con Kolivas To: Marc-Christian Petersen Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.4.20-aa1] Readlatency-2 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 20:45:16 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <200212061038.27387.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> In-Reply-To: <200212061038.27387.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> Cc: linux kernel mailing list , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200212062045.25377.conman@kolivas.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4112 Lines: 106 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:49:10PM +0100, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> as requested by GrandMasterLee (does he have a realname? ;) here goes >> readlatency2 for 2.4.20aa1. Apply ontop of it. >> >> Note: This patch rippes out the elevator-lowlatency hack. > >how does it perform compared to elevator-lowlatency? I guess this is a >call for Con to run a pass on it. > >Actually I still think the 32M queue on a 32M scsi machine during >contigous writes where the elevator basically doesn't matter is a >""bit"" overkill so I still like elevator-lowlatency somehow. >elevator-lowlatency could do something smarter than it currently does >though. Ask and ye shall receive. Here are contest results comparing vanilla 2.4.20, aa1 and aa1 with rl2: noload: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 67.3 97 0 0 1.02 2.4.20aa1 [1] 68.0 97 0 0 1.03 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 67.4 97 0 0 1.02 cacherun: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 65.7 99 0 0 0.99 2.4.20aa1 [1] 65.6 99 0 0 0.99 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 65.4 99 0 0 0.99 process_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 108.1 58 84 40 1.63 2.4.20aa1 [2] 224.6 28 342 70 3.39 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 223.1 29 337 70 3.37 dbench_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 207.2 32 2 46 3.13 2.4.20aa1 [3] 263.7 25 3 42 3.99 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 502.8 13 7 52 7.60 ctar_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 85.4 83 2 9 1.29 2.4.20aa1 [3] 86.3 82 3 10 1.30 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 97.1 78 3 10 1.47 xtar_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 107.6 64 2 8 1.63 2.4.20aa1 [1] 127.8 53 4 9 1.93 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 188.9 36 6 10 2.86 io_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 203.4 33 40 15 3.07 2.4.20aa1 [3] 238.3 27 46 15 3.60 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 302.5 22 63 16 4.57 io_other: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 120.3 56 24 16 1.82 2.4.20aa1 [3] 115.5 58 23 16 1.75 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 107.4 64 23 17 1.62 read_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 88.8 82 16 4 1.34 2.4.20aa1 [2] 97.8 71 18 6 1.48 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 130.1 54 26 6 1.97 list_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 75.7 88 0 8 1.14 2.4.20aa1 [2] 78.4 85 0 9 1.19 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 78.3 85 0 8 1.18 mem_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.20 [5] 84.8 80 44 2 1.28 2.4.20aa1 [3] 179.7 37 59 1 2.72 2.4.20aa1rl2 [3] 180.2 37 51 1 2.72 Changes all over the place. Cheers, Con -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE98HGsF6dfvkL3i1gRAnKJAJ9sW9tgN6Dzfu1s8/Ea8SUTBUf6egCfeyPY 3FAaG70qJYh7Z4PmZchFOYA= =LCgH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/